Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the special defamation prosecution against K. K. Mishra and set aside his ensuing conviction and sentence. The three statements covered by the sanction lacked a reasonable nexus with the Chief Minister’s discharge of public duties, so the special procedure under section 199(2) and (4) CrPC was unavailable. The Public Prosecutor had also failed to scrutinise the materials independently. Using Article 142, the Court granted consequential relief despite completion of the trial and the pending conviction appeal.
Issues
- Whether the sanctioned statements had the nexus with public duties required for the special defamation procedure.
- Whether the Public Prosecutor independently scrutinised the materials.
- Whether completion of trial prevented quashing the prosecution and consequential conviction.
Held
- The special procedure protects the State’s interest in defamation concerning the specified office-holder’s discharge of public functions. None of the three sanctioned statements had the required reasonable nexus with the Chief Minister’s official duties. Such statements might be defamatory, but the ordinary complaint remedy saved by section 199(6), rather than this special procedure, was available. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- A Public Prosecutor must examine the materials in good faith and form an independent opinion, remembering duties to the court and the public. His admissions that he had not scrutinised the documents and had filed on government directions demonstrated failure to satisfy this safeguard. Haste in filing on the sanction date further supported the conclusion on these facts. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The prosecution’s invalid initiation required consequential relief notwithstanding the completed trial and pending High Court appeal. Invoking Article 142, the Court quashed the proceedings, set aside the conviction and sentence, closed the pending appeal and discharged any bail bond. (¶¶ 3, 4, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2014 quashed, conviction and sentence set aside, pending High Court appeal closed and bail bond discharged. The judgment did not decide that the statements could never constitute defamation under an ordinary complaint.